Recently, in preparing to try a seven-month jury trial in Humboldt County, I tried to find an article with advice on how to prepare for a marathon trial. Surprisingly, there was very little on the subject. Therefore, I turned to my usual sources (attorneys who’ve been there) and obtained the following insights, all of which proved true:
On August 27, 2010, the Honorable Judge W. Bruce Watson denied Skilled Healthcare’s Motion for Mistrial Based on Alleged Juror Misconduct. After reviewing the declarations submitted by the defendants and the counter declarations submitted by plaintiffs the Court ruled that there was no juror misconduct and that “Defendants did not meet their burden of establishing misconduct, although the three affidavits presented constitute a prime facie showing of misconduct, they are rebutted in all important aspects by the counter declarations.” Contrary to claims by defendants, the counter declarations revealed that the juror in question did not make any false statements, did not fail to disclose any information, and did not know one of the plaintiffs or have prior knowledge of an event regarding one of the defendants.
The Court’s Order preserves the largest jury verdict in the United States this year and the largest recorded jury verdict in Humboldt County.
Read the court’s entire ruling here.
While the lawyers in the Janssen Law firm aggressively prepare their cases for jury trial, there are other dispute resolution methods that may be suitable for a particular case. In fact, most civil cases for money damages settle prior to trial, in recognition of the economic fact that trials are expensive and uncertain for both sides of a dispute.
On July 6th, 2010 a Humboldt County jury returned a verdict in excess of $670 million dollars against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., Skilled Healthcare LLC and 22 subsidiaries located throughout California for violating the state minimum staffing requirements. The plaintiff class was represented by members W. Timothy Needham, Michael Crowley, Amelia Burroughs and Patrick Griego of the Janssen Law Firm from Eureka, by Michael Thamer from Callahan, and Chris Healey of the Luce Forward firm from San Diego. This is the highest verdict ever achieved against a nursing home chain and one of the highest in the United States this decade. In its verdict the jury found that defendants understaffing was done with malice. The jury will return on July 15th to decide the amount of punitive damages the defendants should pay as a result of their misconduct. The specific Skilled Healthcare facilities sued were Alexandria Care Center, LLC, Alta Care Center, LLC, Anaheim Terrace Care Center, LLC, Bay Crest Care Center, LLC, Brier Oak on Sunset, LLC, Carehouse Healthcare Center, LLC, Devonshire Care Center, LLC, Elmcrest Care Center, LLC, Eureka Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Granada Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Hancock Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Montebello Care Center, LLC, Royalwood Care Center, LLC, Pacific Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Seaview Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Sharon Care Center, LLC, St. Luke Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Sycamore Park Care Center, LLC, The Earlwood, LLC, Valley Healthcare Center, LLC, Villa Maria Healthcare Center, LLC, Willow Creek Healthcare Center, LLC.
Having recently finished a trial where videotaped depositions were used extensively, the following is some practical advice for both taking and defending videotaped depositions.
First, under California law, any deposition may be videotaped provided that the Notice of Deposition indicates the intent to videotape that deposition. [CCP §2025.220(a)(5)]. Further, with any videotaped deposition, there are certain necessary practical requirements under CCP §2025.3430, including (a) the site for the deposition must be “suitably large, adequately lighted, and reasonably quiet”; (b) the operator of the recording of the recording equipment must be competent [CCP §2025.340(b)]; and the operator must not employ any special effects to distort the demeanor of the participants. [CCP §2025.340(g)]
From a practical standpoint make sure that your client is appropriately dressed. Presume that the videotaped deposition will be shown to the jury and have the client dress for that purpose. As an example, one of the witnesses in the recent case wore an orange short sleeve shirt to his deposition which was almost identical to the jump suits that prisoners wear when they are in the dock. Not a good idea!